It hasn't really bothered me enough to say anything about it...but I've recently run into a couple editors that have absolutely no interest in reliable sources. To make a long story short...I've been blocked for a week.

Wikipedia is based on consensus...aka democracy...and right now it's two against one. So, here are the two ways that you can help disprove the free-rider problem:

Register at Wikipedia and give me a hand improving the entries that are relevant to libertarian economics

One of the incompetent editors is now gunning for the entry that I created for legal plunder. I think that the idea of legal plunder is something that everybody should thoroughly understand...don't you?

If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works...or doesn't work...then I'll be happy to try and answer them. Basically, everything you contribute should be supported by a reliable source. You don't necessarily have to mention the source when you make a contribution...but you do need to be able to do so should somebody challenge your edit.

"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

No, you cannot prove that the free-rider problem doesn't exist. Look at food stamps. Look at SSDI. Look at unemployment. Most of the people I know on unemployment, milk it. In fact, the government designed the program to be milked. That's why there has been extension after extension after extension. Some people can make more money on unemployment than if they had a couple part-time jobs. So they decide to be free riders. Some people don't even bother looking for a job. They have seasonal unemployment. They go on it for 2-3 months every year than go back to their job when it starts up again. They are free riders.

This is a very common problem with government welfare. The best way to improve the issue is to make qualifications for welfare stricter and the amount of time you are allowed to be on shorter. As long as government welfare exists, the issue will never be solved.

You cannot disprove it, because it is real and does exist. There are free-riders in any system and that fact does not change the liberty argument one bit, in fact it may actually be beneficial as less government = less opportunity to ride for free.

You cannot disprove it, because it is real and does exist. There are free-riders in any system and that fact does not change the liberty argument one bit, in fact it may actually be beneficial as less government = less opportunity to ride for free.

Well yea, that's exactly what I meant. Freeriding in games exist but games figured out how to monetize that. I'm playing World of Tanks, a free to play game and yet the company is getting massive amounts of money and doing extremely well because some players decide to spend some money on extra goodies that aren't available to everyone. And I'm pretty sure this can be applied to any freerider problem there is.

Last edited by hazek; 01-01-2013 at 11:32 AM.

My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right, tend to be unwilling or unable to accept blame )

You cannot disprove it, because it is real and does exist. There are free-riders in any system and that fact does not change the liberty argument one bit, in fact it may actually be beneficial as less government = less opportunity to ride for free.

The "Free rider" is simply the "free man". It goes like this: To provide effective governemnt services everyone must be enslaved by taxation lest one man be able to enjoy his god given liberty and spend as he wishes.

Free riders don't exist in the private market - just people are allowed to ride free in some circumstances.

The 'Free rider argument is just another bone headed argument for those who love slavery to use to apologize for themselves.

If there is one well-established truth in political economy, it is this: That in all cases, for all commodities that serve to provide for the tangible or intangible need of the consumer, it is in the consumer's best interest that labor and trade remain free, because the freedom of labor and trade have as their necessary and permanent result the maximum reduction of price. And this: That the interests of the consumer of any commodity whatsoever should always prevail over the interests of the producer. Now, in pursuing these principles, one arrives at this rigorous conclusion: That the production of security should in the interest of consumers of this intangible commodity, remain subject to the law of free competition. Whence it follows: That no government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity. - Gustave de Molinari

3. Decide which Wikipedia entries this is relevant to.
4. Determine if it's already been integrated into the relevant entries
5. If it hasn't, then determine the best way to integrate it
6. The easiest way is to just copy and paste the entire passage into an entry.

I think the first time that I just copy and pasted an entire passage was for the Wikipedia entry on foot voting. I added the passages by Friedman and Ebenstein (on Hayek)

Wikipedia was inspired by Hayek's essay on decentralized knowledge. I found and added every single one of the passages in that entry...and I've done the same thing for numerous other entries.

How many "treasures" are out there? How many "treasures" can one person find on their own? We all really love liberty...therefore we all really love arguments for liberty...therefore...everyday we should be as enthusiastic to find these treasures as kids are hunting for Easter Eggs. We should all have "gold fever". Let's find all the "treasures" that support the liberty argument and figure out how to get them into Wikipedia.

The "Free rider" is simply the "free man". It goes like this: To provide effective governemnt services everyone must be enslaved by taxation lest one man be able to enjoy his god given liberty and spend as he wishes.

Free riders don't exist in the private market - just people are allowed to ride free in some circumstances.

The 'Free rider argument is just another bone headed argument for those who love slavery to use to apologize for themselves.

+rep

Originally Posted by Torchbearer

what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.

My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

The problem does exist, you can't disprove it. One could come up with countless examples of free rider problems. In fact, most products and services are not completely excludable or rival.

The "libertarian" position would be that while it's true that the additional costs required to exclude non-payers from specific products or services can result in a "non-optimal" supply of these goods (aka free rider problem), it is in no way guaranteed that the government is able to reach the pareto-optimal level. Typically "market-failures" are put in contrast with benevolent, omnipotent and omniscent entities who could reach "Pareto optimas" by force if they wanted to. This is of course absolutely not applicable for practical political uses (for a wide number of socio-economic reasons governments are neither all-knowing nor benevolent and they themselves create costs).

It's also important to realize that there is no "libertarian economics". There is only economics. Real economics, understood as a the study of human action in regards with scarce resources, is a positive science and does not make any normative value judgements. It just describes what is. Therefore there cannot be several economics that are equally true, there is just real economics and the rest. And the free rider problem evidently does exist and does lead to economic inefficiency. The economic counter-argument is that the alternative, real-life government, is just as inefficient, if not more.

The political, normative counter-argument would be, that economic inefficiency doesn't give any government the right to intervene. But that has nothing to do with the fact that those inefficiencies do exist.

It's also important to realize that there is no "libertarian economics". There is only economics. Real economics, understood as a the study of human action in regards with scarce resources, is a positive science and does not make any normative value judgements. It just describes what is. Therefore there cannot be several economics that are equally true, there is just real economics and the rest. And the free rider problem evidently does exist and does lead to economic inefficiency. The economic counter-argument is that the alternative, real-life government, is just as inefficient, if not more.

The political, normative counter-argument would be, that economic inefficiency doesn't give any government the right to intervene. But that has nothing to do with the fact that those inefficiencies do exist.

The very concept of economic "inefficiency" (however defined) is necessarily pregnant with normative implications. Those implications will be rife with positive considerations - considerations which will, in their own turn, bear further normative implications, and so forth. While the separation of the positive from the normative can be achieved to some degree (and economists are well-advised to attempt to maximize the degree of separation), when it comes to human action, the simple fact is that, ultimately, the two cannot be entirely disentangled. It just isn't possible, any more than it is possible to wholly separate considerations of "ends" from considerations of "means" - each necessarily implies and involves the other. To put it another way, it can be useful & productive (for theoretical purposes) to conceptually separate the yolk from the white when studying an omelet - but omelets as they actually exist cannot be unscrambled ...

"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police." -- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (p. 55)

"The evil that a man inflicts on his fellow man injures both - not only the one to whom it is done, but also the one who does it. Nothing corrupts a man so much as being an arm of the law and making men suffer. The lot of the subject is anxiety, a spirit of servility and fawning adulation; but the pharisaical self-righteousness, conceit, and arrogance of the master are no better. [...] The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob." -- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (p. 58) [bold emphasis added]

Wikipedia is easily the most efficient/effective way to help people learn about economics. Whenever somebody does a search for an economic term...it is usually the first result.

Anyone can edit wiki. Doesn't mean the person editing is correct in their own perception about what they write there. Is almost a full time job coming behind those who make a hobby of it. Which reminds me. I've been meaning to check on a few specific pages.

Last edited by Natural Citizen; 01-01-2013 at 06:41 PM.

"But we want no excuse for any supposed mistakes of our ancestors. Let us first see it prov'd that they were mistakes. 'Till then we must hold ourselves obliged to them for sentiments transmitted to us so worthy of their character, and so important to our security...If the liberties of America are ever compleatly ruined, of which in my opinion there is now the utmost danger, it will in all probability be the consequence of a mistaken notion of prudence, which leads men to acquiesce in measures of the most destructive tendency for the sake of present ease. When designs are form'd to rase the very foundation of a free government, those few who are to erect their grandeur and fortunes upon the general ruin, will employ every art to sooth the devoted people into a state of indolence, inattention and security, which is forever the fore-runner of slavery-- They are alarmed at nothing so much, as attempts to awaken the people to jealousy and watchfulness; and it has been an old game played over and over again, to hold up the men who would rouse their fellow citizens and countrymen to a sense of their real danger, and spirit them to the most zealous activity in the use of all proper means for the preservation of the public liberty, as 'pretended patriots,' 'intemperate politicians,' rash, hotheaded men, Incendiaries, wretched desperadoes, who, as was said of the best of men, would turn the world upside down, or have done it already."

We all agree that Wikipedia can help people learn about libertarian economics

We all agree that the more people that understand libertarian economics...the more we'll all benefit

Will members of the Ron Paul forum contribute to the Wikipedia entries on libertarian economics?

If yes, then it will help disprove the free-rider problem

If no, then it will help prove the free-rider problem

But can we all agree that your economics are libertarian economics? That would be the rub.

I can't say I've seen any of your economics that I considered particularly libertarian. If nothing else, libertarians generally pride themselves on arguing stuff that is proven, well thought out, and liable to actually work.

Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet

You talk of mountains and molehills; I find that ironic. To you, being called names for using unapproved speech is a "mountain," but Edward Snowden, the NSA, the War of Terror, higher taxes, racial profiling, government run healthcare and free housing are "molehills". That sort of confused misprioritazation is exactly what's wrong with Trump supporters.

Originally Posted by acptulsa

When your position is indefensible, a good offense becomes something more than 'the best defense'. It's the only defense.

But can we all agree that your economics are libertarian economics? That would be the rub.

I can't say I've seen any of your economics that I considered particularly libertarian. If nothing else, libertarians generally pride themselves on arguing stuff that is proven, well thought out, and liable to actually work.

It's also important to realize that there is no "libertarian economics". There is only economics. Real economics, understood as a the study of human action in regards with scarce resources, is a positive science and does not make any normative value judgements. It just describes what is. Therefore there cannot be several economics that are equally true, there is just real economics and the rest. And the free rider problem evidently does exist and does lead to economic inefficiency. The economic counter-argument is that the alternative, real-life government, is just as inefficient, if not more.

There are market (libertarian) economics and non sequitur (planned/command) economics. The first one works because your preferences do matter and the second one fails because your preferences do not matter.